The details of an alternative plan (to Councils’ latest merger proposals) put forward by David Wilkie and others can be seen here (to which you can add comments) or here on the official merger microsite (to which you can’t automatically add comments, although you can of course do so on the [member login required to read or write] official merger forums). (You can also see a statement from another members’ group called “Actuaries for the merger” on the official merger microsite here, but this is not an alternative proposal, merely a support group for Councils’ proposals)
For ease of reference, I also put a copy of the two relevant texts (so far) below
(David Wilkie’s letter in March to The Actuary)
A simpler plan
It is sad that Councils are repeating last year’s merger mistake, proposing too much at once. The only changes since last year’s proposals are the name, and bits of the draft governance document. Institute Council claims that unification requires a new Charter. Faculty Council claims that unification requires the Faculty to be wound up. Neither claim is true.
A much simpler unification plan is for the Institute, by a special Bye-law or otherwise, to take in all Faculty members in their corresponding grades, and arrange for some Scots to be on Council. And then for Faculty Council to relinquish its professional body activities to the Institute, but keep the Faculty in existence as a Scottish actuarial society, which would run Sessional Meetings, and might do more. Subscriptions would need to be adjusted appropriately.
Faculty members that did not like being in the Institute could resign, and should be allowed to stay in the Faculty; they might not be able to get practising certificates, but could still practise as actuaries (as any of us could without being in either body). Faculty members that were content to be only in the Institute could resign from the Faculty.
This is simple, and would need a two thirds majority in an Institute vote, and no formal vote in the Faculty, but to get members’ agreement in principle would be very advisable.
It would not be a takeover of the Faculty, but a return home for the successors of those who left the Institute in 1856.
The Institute could change its Bye-Laws and the Faculty its Rules at leisure. Neither Charter requires any change.
Members should be given the opportunity to say whether they prefer this simpler plan.
To read more and to comment on this plan go to http://adwsplan.wordpress.com.
David Wilkie, FFA, FIA
Continue reading →
InQA software